APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 5, 2004 and Executive
Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2004 were approved as presented.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Award of Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting
was presented to the City.

Proclamations were read aloud for Race Equality Week of October 18 - 22,
2004 and National Red Ribbon Celebration week of October 23 - 31, 2004.

It was noted that the Ashland Children's Halloween Parade would be held on
October 31st, 2004, starting at 3:30 p.m. at the Ashland Library. Also, a
celebration for the completion of the Ashland Street/Siskiyou Blvd. Project
is scheduled for October 22, 2004 at 4 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARINGS1. Public Hearing on Community Development Block Grant Award of
past carryover and Program Income.
Housing Program Specialist Brandon Goldman explained that the City provides
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) each year to eligible affordable
housing projects. This year, the City received a proposal from Rogue Valley
Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) for the acquisition of land in
order to construct 6 affordable housing units. These units would benefit
low and moderate-income households as part of a self-help program that would
be administered through RVCDC. The City has also received a request from
the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) to apply $80,000 in previously awarded
CDBG funds for the purchase of a property at 39 Garfield Street.

Mr. Goldman clarified that the request from ACLT was independent of RVCDC's
proposal. Staff recommended that Council award the full $274,000 to RVCDC
for the purchase of the property at 795 Park Street, and further recommended
that $80,000 be reallocated to ACLT so that they could acquire the property
at 39 Garfield Street. It was noted that the Housing Commission had reviewed
both requests and also recommended that the Council award RVCDC the full
$274,000 and ACLT $80,000.

In regards to past recipients not having the funds spent in a timely fashion,
Mr. Goldman clarified that the City would prepare a sub-recipient agreement,
which would contain a timeline for the project development. As long as RVCDC
stayed within the established timeline for completion, it would be acceptable
to CDBG regulations and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Ron Demele/165 Crocker/Rogue Valley Community Development
Community/Explained that 60% of the units would be for households with
50% or less of the area median income; the other 40% would be for households
with 80% or less of the area median income. Mr. Demele noted that they had
received 21 applications for this project and have pre-qualified 5 applicants.
He explained that RVCDC would like to begin working on this project in January
or February of 2005, and that the first round of houses would be completed
by the fall.

Jennifer Henderson/2799 Siskiyou Blvd./Ashland Community Land Trust
(ACLT)/Noted that ACLT had already completed one apartment project and
stated that they had received a grant from the Community Housing Development
Organization.

Public Hearing Open: 7:27 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:28 p.m.

Councilor Morrison/Hartzell m/s to approve the award of $274,000 in Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds to Rogue Valley Community Development
Corporation for the acquisition of land for the development of 6 affordable
units, and to approve the reallocation of $80,000 in CDBG funds to the Ashland
Community Land Trust for the acquisition of property for 2 affordable housing
units. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

PUBLIC FORUMTom Rose/430 Wiley Street #61/Spoke regarding the sewage plant located
in Ashland's watershed. Mr. Rose stated that the DEQ had cited the sewage
plant for being out of compliance and feels that the City should be involved
in this matter. He stated that he had gathered data and found that the plant
has been out of compliance for 5 years in regards to the effluent being
submitted. He further stated, that the DEQ requires that a plant of this
sort to have a ground water monitoring facility and stated that the ground
monitoring facility for this plant consisted of 6 wells that were either
drilled in the wrong place or was not drilled deep enough. That the DEQ had
scheduled several public meetings to consider a new permit for the facility
and is considering eliminating the need for ground water monitoring. He expressed
his displeasure with the timing of the public meetings and felt that the
DEQ was making an effort to submerge this issue.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Council decision regarding Administrative Appeal Process concerning
the U.S. Forest Service Record of Decision (ROD) and Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) for Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion.
Public Works Director Paula Brown stated that this issue had been placed
on the Agenda for Council deliberation and discussion regarding whether or
not to file an administrative appeal with the U.S. Forest Service. It is
Staff's opinion that the ski area expansion would have limited or no measurable
impact to the watershed or to water quality. Staff's recommendation is to
move forward with the Forest Service decision and develop a supplemental
agreement or a specific memorandum or understanding between the City and
Mt. Ashland Association to ensure that a QA/QC Team is established, that
the City continues to be a part of the design review, and that the ski area
assets be continually reviewed to ensure financial security. Ms. Brown noted
that MAA staff and Steve Johnson with the Forest Service were available to
answer questions.

Chris Chambers/590 Elizabeth Ave/Stated that the City had made a bad
decision, in delegating its decision making process, over to Mt. Ashland
Association and stated that none of the MAA Board Members opposed the expansion.
Mr. Chambers noted the Valdez Principles and felt that the City would be
violating these principles by allowing deforestation to occur. He encouraged
the Council to keep the City involved in this process and suggested that
the Council appeal the Forest Service decision if that is what's needed to
ensure that the City's water quality and wildlife habitat remain intact.

Paul Copeland/462 Jennifer St/Noted the pristine areas in the watershed
that would be destroyed by the expansion. Mr. Copeland stated that the MAA
Board did not look at other alternatives and felt that they have behind the
NEPA process. He stated that the Council had an obligation to address this
issue and expressed concern with the handing this over to the Public Works
Department.

Eric Navickas/711 Faith Ave/Presented an alternative that would have
been an option for the expansion area. Mr. Navickas noted the City's 1929
Agreement with the Forest Service and stated that the City had an obligation
to appeal the Forest Service decision.

Frank Lang/535 Taylor St/Mentioned the Spruce grove and the White
Bark Pine trees. Mr. Lang felt that MAA should have limited the expansion
area, eliminated all expert runs, invested in a White Pine restoration project
and set aside the remaining area as a high elevation Siskiyou Conifer research
natural area.

Pat Acklin/270 Scenic Drive/Noted that she was a member of the Mt.
Ashland Association and stated that this had been a long process. Ms. Acklin
stated that the MAA Board did not hide behind NEPA process and felt that
the NEPA process provided many opportunities. She stated the letters received
by the Forest Service were carefully reviewed and the City's input was carefully
examined. Ms. Acklin stated that the Forest Service determined that a phased
construction process would ultimately stretch out the environmental impacts
and that it would be better to accomplish the expansion in a rapid fashion
to reduce impact during layover from season to season. She stated that MAA
welcomed the City's participation in choosing a firm or interdisciplinary
team to examine the plans for construction and urged the Council not to appeal
the Forest Service decision.

Douglas McGeary/210 Renault Ave, Medford/Noted his professional
relationship with several members of the Council and stated that he was a
MAA Board Member. Mr. McGeary stated that the MAA Board had worked hard to
reach out to the community and stated that MAA wanted to continue to work
with the City and any QA/QC Team that is established. Mr. McGeary expressed
support for Staff's recommendation and stated that MAA has the full intentions
of cooperating with the City of Ashland.

Jim Teece/864 Neil Creek Road/Spoke on behalf of the Ashland Chamber
of Commerce and reminded the Council that the Chamber strongly encourages
the Mt. Ashland Expansion Project. Mr. Teece stated that the ski area was
very much a part of the foundation of this community and felt that this process
was a continuation of the original Save Mt. Ashland Project. Mr. Teece encouraged
the Council to continue to support this project.

Richard Hendrickson/444 Monte Vista Dr/Stated that the discussions
regarding the ski area had been dominated by a small, noisy and relentless
minority of people that kept providing the same information (or mis-information)
all the time. Mr. Hendrickson stated that the Council had been bombarded
by pseudo-science, much of it gathered by people who had no qualifications.
He urged the Council to allow this project to move forward and noted that
the City Staff had proposed a number of measures that could be counted on
to assure a successful outcome. Mr. Hendrickson stated that he trusted the
Public Works Department and felt that the Council should trust them as well.

Angie Thusius/897 Beach Street/Expressed her various concerns, including
the clear-cutting of trees, how the MAA Board was self-elected and questioned
how the expansion would be paid for. She stated that the City had not yet
been provided with the final sedimentation information of the existing runs
and stated that the model was based on Idaho soil conditions. Ms. Thusius
claimed that the Forest Service dismantled the Community Alternative and
felt that all of the accountability for this project would fall onto the
City and its residents. She stated that as the leaseholder, the Council has
the power to make changes and urged them to appeal the Forest Service decision.

Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99 S/Noted that he was a MAA Board Member, although
tonight he was only speaking as a citizen. Mr. Roth stated that the community
was much broader than just the people who resided within Ashland and noted
that currently, only 30% of the Mt. Ashland Season Pass holders had an Ashland
address. He stated that he had complete faith in the City Staff and the Forest
Service to work together to implement a monitoring plan that would protect
the City's drinking water. Mr. Roth stated that it was time to enhance the
facilities on Mt. Ashland and asked the Council to not appeal the Forest
Service decision.

Ryan Navickas/711 Faith Avenue/Requested that the Council continue
to participate in the NEPA process to protect the City's watershed. He stated
that people are fooling themselves if they believe that the expansion would
not have a major impact on the watershed. Mr. Navickas stated that the City
needed to ensure the safety of the City's water supply for future generations
and urged the Council to file an appeal.

Ray Havira/33 Dahlia Terrace, Eagle Point/Noted his past involvement
with the ski area and stated the growth of the community had increased the
demand for the expanded ski area. Mr. Havira stated that Ski Ashland had
a very good reputation with the skiing industry nation wide and felt that
they were on the right path with the proposed expansion. He also stated that
many more people visit the mountain during the winter than during the summer
months and commented on the need to provide recreation for family and youth.
Mr. Havira asked the Council to support the expansion.

Scott Harding/2025 Tolman Creek Road/Stated that the City was the
permit holder and would be held responsible if the ski area were to fail.
Mr. Harding noted the 1929 Agreement with the Forest Service and stated the
City would be setting a precedent by not holding them to the Agreement. He
stated that this was not a community based decision-making process, but rather
an administration process at the Federal level. He noted that in 2001, MAA
suggested to remove the public appeals option from the NEPA process. He stated
that the ski area recently received a D on an environmental ski card and
urged the Council to appeal the Forest Service decision.

Jared Cruce/1030 Park Street/Noted that the WEPP model was based on,
at best, 50% accuracy. Mr. Cruce questioned why the City would hand over
its water rights to the Federal Government and did not believe that the Forest
Service had given a fair evaluation of the Community Alternative. Mr. Cruce
asked the Council to reconsider handing the City's control to the Forest
Service and urged them to appeal.

Stuart O'Neill/396 Bridge Street #2/Stated that the community had
asked the Council many times to stand up for the City's watershed and oppose
the Mt. Ashland Expansion. Mr. O'Neill stated that he would continue to oppose
any expansion into the middle branch of the watershed and stated that in
the future there would be trials for crimes committed against Earth.

Dan Buckley/300 Luman Road #15, Phoenix/Stated that it was time to
expand the ski area and asked the Council to support the Forest Service decision.

Tracy Bungay/334 Bridge Street/Noted the number of comments received
by the Forest Service and the length of the comments. Ms. Bungay stated that
many of the citizens are opposed to the Forest Service decision and urged
the Council file an appeal.

Michael Goldman/3624 Avion Dr, Medford/Disagreed with the previous
speaker and stated that the majority of people are in favor of the expansion.
Mr. Goldman stated that the expansion was an economic necessity for Mt. Ashland
and stated that skiers are opting to go to Mt. Shasta because of the need
for improvements at Mt. Ashland. He stated that he didn't understand why
the Council wouldn't listen to the experts and move forward with this project.
Mr. Goldman stated that Mt. Ashland needed to expand in order to remain
competitive in its field and urged the Council to trust the process and not
appeal the Forest Service decision.

Chris Adams/955 Pinecrest Terrace/Thanked all those who had shared
their views, but stated that the reports showed that there would be minimal
or no impact to the watershed. Mr. Adams stated he was in favor of following
Staff's recommendation and felt that the parties involved had bent over backwards
to accommodate the environmental concerns raised. Mr. Adams stated that those
that are opposed to the Forest Service decision are against any type of expansion
and thinks that this is unrealistic. Mr. Adams stated the crowding on in
the ski area makes for an unsafe situation and felt that the expansion would
benefit the community and ensure the ski area's long-term survival.

Chris VanNess/607 4th Street, Phoenix/Voiced his appreciation for
the public comment process and thanked the Council for their efforts. Mr.
Van Ness noted that he was a Mt. Ashland employee and stated that everyone
that he worked with was environmentally conscientious. Mr. Van Ness asked
the Council to allow the expansion to move forward.

Dan Thorndyke/Statement in support of Mt. Ashland Expansion was read
into the record.

Judy Davidson/540 Allison St/Statement in support of Mt. Ashland Expansion
was read into the record.

Tonya Graham/Statement opposed to the Mt. Ashland Expansion was read
into the record.

Mayor DeBoer disclosed that he was a prior MAA Board Member but resigned
when he became Mayor due to the conflict of interest. Mayor DeBoer stated
that he was initially opposed to the expansion, but over the years realized
the necessity for expanding and became a supporter. He also expressed his
utmost confidence in the City's Public Works Director Paula Brown and stated
that he did not understand why the City would appeal its own permit application.

Jeff Hanson, General Manager of Mt. Ashland Association/Spoke regarding
MAA's ongoing work with the City and stated that they had been working closely
with the City Staff in many areas. He stated that they had initiated a
cooperative partnership with the Forest Service, the City of Ashland, and
the United Stated Geological Service to develop a water quantity and quality
testing regiment that would provide detailed data that would be utilized
for the planning and monitoring portion of the Ski Area project. He noted
that this regiment was in addition to the past monitoring completed by the
Forest Service. Mr. Hanson stated that MAA was providing the funds for the
monitoring work and that the monitoring activities had already started. He
noted that they would continue to speak with Ashland's Finance Director to
ensure compliance with the lease agreement and have agreed to provide updated
information as additional assets are installed to assure sufficient liquidation
value to meet the terms of the Forest Service Special Use Permit.

Regarding MAA's environmental record, Mr. Hanson stated that they take their
responsibility very seriously and have demonstrated a record of superior
care of the environment in their operations and construction projects. He
stated that even though the nitrogen levels at the sewage facility had not
met the standard, the water that is being put into the drain fields is over
200 times cleaner than what the previous system produced. He stated that
MAA had developed a system that would meet the final standard.

Mr. Hanson stated that the ski area expansion would have minimal or no impact
to the watershed or water quality as long as the construction activities
are completed as anticipated. He also noted that the Record of Decision provided
direction for appropriate mitigation measures, continual monitoring and
corrective action taken both during and after construction. He stated that
MAA welcomed input from the City and that MAA and the City had a shared interest
in the long-term success of the Mt. Ashland facility and the protection of
the Ashland Creek Watershed.

Steve Johnson/United States Forest Service/Clarified for Council that
the term "consultant" used in their memo referred to a consultant firm or
consultant team. They do not anticipate that just one person would be able
to handle the variety of needs. He also explained that the Forest Service
was very receptive to the QA/QC Team concept, however they had concerns about
delegating that authority to another party.

Mr. Johnson clarified the appeals process for Council. He stated it was an
administrative appeal process and that the last day to appeal would be November
8th. The appeal would go to the Regional Forester and she, along with an
Appeal Reviewing Officer, would have 45 days to consider the appeal and respond.
If there were no response in 45 days, it would be an automatic upholding
of the local Forest Service decision. If the Regional Forester decided that
there was an area warranted further review, than it would revert back to
the local Forest Service and a decision would need to be made as to what
avenue to proceed with. In addition, within the first 15 days of the close
of the appeal period, there would be an informal disposition period where
the Forest Service would be required to contact the appellant to set up a
meeting that would be held locally in order to resolve the issues. Mr. Johnson
stated that all appeals, whether it was from a citizen or the City, would
be treated in the same manner.

Mr. Johnson explained why the Community Alternative did not warrant a separate
review, and clarified that all components of the Community Alternative were
analyzed and incorporated when possible.

In regards to recourse action after the appeal period had ended, Public Works
Director Paula Brown clarified that the City's recourse would be to go to
the Forest Service and explain what needed to occur. The Forest Service could
then require MAA to implement additional measures or actions.

City Attorney Mike Franell stated that there was no clear definition to the
term "full consideration", which was used in the 1929 Agreement with the
Forest Service. He explained that the legal definition of the word "full"
meant abundantly provided, sufficient in quantity or degree, complete, entire,
and detailed. The term "consideration" or "consider" meant deemed, determined,
adjudged, or reasonably regarded. Mr. Franell stated that in his opinion,
the Forest Service's actions fully met the intent of the 1929 agreement

Councilor Laws stated that the City could not force the Forest Service to
take action. All that the Forest Service was required to do was consider
the City's requests and provide a full response explaining their decision.
Laws explained the history behind the lease agreement with the Forest Service
and MAA and acknowledged the conflicting views and interests by the community.

Councilor Laws voiced support for continuing to work with the Forest Service
and MAA. He stated that it was the City's responsibility to ensure that there
would be no negative effects to the water. He stated that if the Council
appealed the Forest Service decision, it would most likely not change their
decision, but could reduce the ability of the City to cooperate with the
Forest Service in the future. Councilor Laws voiced support for continuing
to work with all of the parties involved to ensure that the expansion is
carried out in a way that is as responsible and beneficial as possible.

Mr. Franell clarified the 3 basis for an appeal: 1) Council disagrees with
a specific component of the decision and believes that there was a better
alternative that would serve the needs of the application as well as protect
the environment, 2) Council disagrees with a portion of the decision that
was not related to a specific condition, or 3) Council does not believe that
the Forest Service adequately considered the public comments. Mr. Franell
and Ms. Brown both stated that it would be difficult for the City to establish
a case for appeal.

Councilor Hartzell m/s to uphold the decision already made by the Council
and ask Staff to move forward in compliance with what Council has already
approved and sent to the Forest Service originally. Motion died due to lack
of second.

Ms. Brown clarified that she could take the comments that were previously
made by the Council, which were included in the Agenda Packet, and incorporate
those into the discussion with MAA. Before a decision was made, it would
come back to the Council for approval.

Councilor Laws/Hearn m/s to accept the recommendations of Staff and
additionally ask Staff to come back to the Council with recommendations
concerning the adequacy of the monitoring processes and recommendations for
improvements if necessary and that Staff make sure that the City has a
participatory role in monitoring processes. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.

NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS (None)

ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Amending Resolution 2004-14
reducing the BPA Electric Surcharge Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section
14.16.030."
Electric Director Dick Wanderscheid stated this would be an approximately
$130,000 reduction and that Staff would like to pass these saving to the
citizens of Ashland. Staff recommendation is to accept the proposed resolution
and implement the new rates in November.

OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
1. Request from Councilor Jackson for adoption of "A Resolution to
Oppose the Constitutional Amendment of Ballot Measure 36."
Councilor Jackson stated that she had consulted with her fellow councilors
and felt that it was important to bring this issue to Council because this
measure would impact some of the City activities. She stated that her biggest
concern was that if this measure passed, it would amend the Constitution
in a way that discriminated rather than provided fairness to all citizens.

Councilor Morrison suggested the following changes:
Section 1 - "We believe that it is inadvisable and
unacceptable to introduce "
Section 3 - "We encourage voters to study the Measure and fully understand
its impacts prior to voting to put unequal treatment into the Oregon
constitution."

Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s the adoption of the Resolution to oppose
constitutional amendment of ballot Measure 36, as amended. DISCUSSION:
Mayor DeBoer stated he did not mean to offend any of Ashland's citizens,
but stated that this issue had no purpose on a City Council's Agenda. Mayor
DeBoer stated that he supported equal treatment for all citizens, but felt
that the Council should work on City issues and should allow the legislative
process to take its course. Mayor DeBoer stated it was the Council's role
to set policies for the City and stated that he could not sign this resolution
if it passed. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Amarotico, Morrison, Hearn,
Laws and Jackson, YES. Motion passed.